linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] can: flexcan: add transceiver capabilities

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250219103955.GB3888@debian>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:39:55 +0100
From: Dimitri Fedrau <dima.fedrau@...il.com>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Dimitri Fedrau via B4 Relay <devnull+dimitri.fedrau.liebherr.com@...nel.org>,
	Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Dimitri Fedrau <dimitri.fedrau@...bherr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] can: flexcan: add transceiver capabilities

Hi Marc,

Am Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:41:24AM +0100 schrieb Marc Kleine-Budde:
> On 11.02.2025 14:12:34, Dimitri Fedrau via B4 Relay wrote:
> > From: Dimitri Fedrau <dimitri.fedrau@...bherr.com>
> > 
[...]
> > +
> >  	if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
> >  		of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node,
> >  				     "clock-frequency", &clock_freq);
> > @@ -2173,6 +2185,7 @@ static int flexcan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	priv->clk_per = clk_per;
> >  	priv->clk_src = clk_src;
> >  	priv->reg_xceiver = reg_xceiver;
> > +	priv->xceiver = xceiver;
> >  
> >  	if (priv->devtype_data.quirks & FLEXCAN_QUIRK_NR_IRQ_3) {
> >  		priv->irq_boff = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
> 
> please also add
> 	if (xceiver)
> 		priv->can.bitrate_max = xceiver->attrs.max_link_rate;
> 
> 

Yes, will add it.

> > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/flexcan/flexcan.h b/drivers/net/can/flexcan/flexcan.h
> > index 4933d8c7439e62b5d6fcc445d88c2b5ccbfa13bb..56be40875eee24aee9297c4bc7c2fc4380e682ff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/can/flexcan/flexcan.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/can/flexcan/flexcan.h
> > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ struct flexcan_priv {
> >  	struct clk *clk_per;
> >  	struct flexcan_devtype_data devtype_data;
> >  	struct regulator *reg_xceiver;
> > +	struct phy *xceiver;
> 
> All other drivers name this variable "transceiver", does it make sense
> to use this name here, too?
> 
I have no preference on this, but my intention was to name it xceiver
according to reg_xceiver, so people familiar with the code would know
what it is about. I can change it to transceiver, what do you think ?

Best regards,
Dimitri Fedrau